—a t — &.,

a

bi
me

-
\

Wy
RC

 

Laws concerning freedom
of speech and hatred

> What should be illegal?

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

Li most rational people, I am
strongly anti-hatred. I believe
humanity has a natural tendency to turn
against each other, and that equality and
tolerance is the foundation of progress.
In many parts of Europe, hate
speech is a crime. If you speak at a Nazi
rally in public in Germany, you will
be arrested. This is for fairly obvious
reasons; Europe knows exactly how
dangerous and horrible Nazis are,
having had millions of their citizens
slaughtered by them in living memory.
In North America, such speech
is generally frowned upon, but isn’t
explicitly illegal. Freedom of speech
is a right we all strongly value. It’s

certainly not a good idea to speak at a
Nazi rally here, as you will most likely
be protested, booed, and physically
assaulted. I can’t say it wouldn't be

deserved, either. Advocating for a society

in which other people are exterminated
is a really, really horrible thing to do.
Freedom of speech does not mean
freedom from consequences, which is
something many fail to understand.
There is a difference between being
arrested for what you say and being told
that what you are saying is unacceptable
and will not be tolerated. If you stand
in public and shout racial slurs just
because you have the legal right to,
you may still be told not to do that by
others around. Your legal rights are not
always the same as your societal rights.
It’s legal to never take a shower, but you
should still probably do so once ina

while if you want to be out in public.
Despite my extreme distaste for
intolerant views, I do think free speech
is one of the most important things to
have in this society. It is a conflicting
belief, because the thought of actual
Nazis banding together to discuss
their toxic, evil beliefs makes me sick,
and I don’t want that sort of thing to
happen. However, the government
telling people what they can and
can’t talk about is a slippery slope.
Who makes the rules on
acceptability in freedom of speech?
Each person believes the views they
find tasteful should be accepted, and
that others should be discouraged.
However, where the limits are can
vary widely, on all sides. Saying things
that are intolerant or hateful towards
certain groups of people should always

Image via britishnationalfront.net

be discouraged, though some argue
that this limits any challenging or
critical discussion on sensitive topics.
If we aren't allowed to say one thing,
perhaps soon we may not be allowed to
say many things. There is a difference
between criticizing aspects of certain
people (as unpleasant and prejudiced
as they may be) and advocating for the
extermination of said people. Ideas and
ideology are different from incitement.
Of course, in a perfect world, people
would only say things that are tolerant
and mutually understanding of others.
In my really perfect world, everyone
would only say things that I personally
agreed with. Sadly, this probably isn’t
going to happen anytime soon, but until
that time, it’s important that people
are legeally allowed to express their
beliefs, even ones we don’t agree with.

Trump's personal qualities shouldn't
overshadow his bad policies

> Personality vs. politics

Colten Kamlade
Columnist

 

Ten has been under intense scrutiny
since his inauguration. From his
disastrous phone call with the Australian
Prime Minister to his controversial

golf outings, the media has reveled in

his failures. It’s not that they want to

keep us informed, but that they know
articles vilifying the president will be
read. People are searching for reasons to
hate Trump. Don’t misunderstand me;
there are legitimate criticisms of the new
president, and I’m nota fan of him by any
measure. So, why do I care if the public
crucifies him at every opportunity?

My concern is that Trump’s harmful
policies will be buried underneath our
superficial complaints. The public knows
that the president might golf a bit too
much, that he’s outrageously offensive,
and that he doesn’t always get his facts
straight. Do we know why his politics are
bad, though? Certainly he’s bigoted, but
that’s not why he won the presidency.
Trump won because the American
people thought that his policies were

going to change the US for the better. If
we want to contribute to the discussion,
we have to debate his politics. We need
to understand why his policies are
harmful, not why he is a bad person.
The other option is that we continue
to cry wolf whenever the president
opens his mouth. If we do that, then
people will stop taking our criticisms
seriously. I saw it happen when people
first compared Trump to Hitler. Trump
scrutinized immigration policy and was
called a racist for it. When he proposed
a Muslim registry, it became a relevant
comparison, but people had moved on.
The public was distracted from the real
issue because of all the name-calling.
It’s frustrating to watch Trump bury
himself under his own outrageousness.
People are losing sight of why he is
a bad president because the media
reports on everything he does, whether
bad or just silly. Let’s stop turning
the man into a demon. It’s fun to
hate Trump, but it distracts from real
political issues. We don’t need any
superficial reasons to dislike the man;
let’s focus on the actual problems.

  

Image via businessinsider.com